DOJ Sues Minnesota Over Aid to Illegal Immigrants as Supreme Court Backs Trump on Executive Powers

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota and its Democratic Governor Tim Walz, challenging a program that provides financial assistance to illegal immigrants seeking higher education. The legal action marks the latest in a series of federal efforts to curb what officials describe as preferential treatment for non-citizens over American citizens.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking on behalf of the DOJ, condemned the Minnesota initiative as discriminatory. “No state can be allowed to treat American citizens like second-class individuals in their own country,” Bondi said in a statement Friday. “We already won this fight in Texas, and we’re ready to do the same in Minnesota to make sure citizens come first.”

The lawsuit targets Minnesota’s Office of Higher Education and names State Attorney General Keith Ellison as a co-defendant. The case centers on the Minnesota Dream Act, a state law enacted in 2013 that allows illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition and state-funded financial aid, provided they meet certain residency and graduation criteria.

Federal prosecutors argue that the law effectively discriminates against U.S. citizens who live out of state but are still required to pay higher tuition than undocumented residents. According to the DOJ’s statement, “The magnitude of this discrimination against U.S. citizens is substantial. A citizen from another state faces steeper tuition costs than someone in the country illegally but residing in Minnesota.”

The lawsuit aligns with a recent executive order issued by President Donald Trump, who returned to the Oval Office after the 2024 election. The order mandates that federal agencies identify and eliminate any laws, policies, or practices that extend preferential treatment to illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens.

This latest move also follows DOJ threats of legal action against a similar program in Texas and an ongoing lawsuit in Kentucky. Legal experts expect these cases to set important precedents, especially in light of recent judicial rulings that have reinforced executive authority on immigration matters.

Governor Walz, who was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in the party’s unsuccessful 2024 campaign, has pushed back on the lawsuit. Speaking to supporters, Walz said, “America must remain a place of opportunity for all people who seek education and a better future. This lawsuit does not reflect the values we hold dear in Minnesota.”

However, critics argue that offering financial assistance to illegal immigrants while U.S. citizens in other states are excluded from those same benefits is a violation of equal treatment under the law.

Adding further momentum to the federal government’s stance, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling on Friday restricting the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts—an often-used legal tool that blocks executive actions across the entire country. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines with all Republican-appointed justices in the majority, gives more leeway to the executive branch in implementing national policy.

Attorney General Bondi applauded the Supreme Court’s decision. “This ruling ends the misuse of nationwide injunctions that were often used to stall and obstruct the president’s agenda,” she posted on X. “It’s a major win for the rule of law and for our legal system.”

The ruling directly impacts ongoing legal disputes, including a challenge to Trump’s controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. The order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, including those in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the birthright citizenship order to take effect in some jurisdictions, pending a final ruling. Legal scholars predict the court will revisit the issue in its upcoming term, with a landmark decision expected in 2025.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, approximately 255,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily. If implemented nationwide, Trump’s policy could significantly alter the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which currently grants automatic citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.

Pam Bondi emphasized that the legal battles ahead will shape the future of immigration law in America. “This is about restoring common sense, protecting citizens, and upholding our Constitution,” she said. “We will continue fighting for every American’s right to equal protection under the law.”

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Minnesota represents a broader push by the Trump administration to challenge state-level policies it deems incompatible with federal immigration law. With court victories already stacking up, the administration seems poised to reshape the legal framework around both immigration and executive authority.

As the battle over education benefits, immigration status, and executive power continues, the courts will play a central role in determining how far states—and presidents—can go.